Why is racial profiling frowned upon?

[Laize]

Alright look, first off before I get crucified out of hand I want to point out that the practice WAS ruled Constitutional in the USA via US v Armstrong. Nevertheless the practice remains illegal in most (if not all) jurisdictions.

My question is why? At least under certain circumstances, why would it be wrong to profile?

To be clear, I'm neither for nor against it.

On one hand, I think it's wrong to presume all members of a given race are criminals.

On the other hand, I think it's downright stupid to ignore the demographics of crime.

To be sure, there are white terrorists and criminals... but by and large the vast majority of terrorists are of Arab ethnicity, and most criminals in the US are black. So why do we think it makes sense, when trying to prevent crime, to treat all races as equally likely to offend?

[Rukentuts]

Because is what is actually being profiled. You aren't profiling someone that appears to be a drug dealer, you're profiling someone because they're black. This presents multiple problems: 1) you're more likely to profile somebody innocent of the target race and 2) you're more likely to overlook offenders of other races.

You can have something that looks wonderful on paper, but be terrible in practice. This is one of those cases.

[Booshman]

Alright look, first off before I get crucified out of hand I want to point out that the practice WAS ruled Constitutional in the USA via US v Armstrong. Nevertheless the practice remains illegal in most (if not all) jurisdictions.

My question is why? At least under certain circumstances, why would it be wrong to profile?

To be clear, I'm neither for nor against it.

On one hand, I think it's wrong to presume all members of a given race are criminals.

On the other hand, I think it's downright stupid to ignore the demographics of crime.

To be sure, there are white terrorists and criminals... but by and large the vast majority of terrorists are of Arab ethnicity, and most criminals in the US are black. So why do we think it makes sense, when trying to prevent crime, to treat all races as equally likely to offend?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_fallacy

/thread

[Baracuda]

It doesn't make sense when it's about preventing it before it happens, makes sense when punishing them. Also from what I've heard blacks often commit more crimes because they have it worse with money and arabs (terrorist ones) do it because of religion?

[Chingylol]

Relevant...

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...rding-to-Study

[Laize]

Because is what is actually being profiled. You aren't profiling someone that appears to be a drug dealer, you're profiling someone because they're black. This presents multiple problems: 1) you're more likely to profile somebody innocent of the target race and 2) you're more likely to overlook offenders of other races.

You can have something that looks wonderful on paper, but be terrible in practice. This is one of those cases.

So do you believe that there's no excuse whatsoever to, on an airline flight, scrutinize Arabs more than white people?

Assume the underlying process can work. Do you think there's nothing to be added by scrutinizing Arab passengers more?

[Catta]

Because being non-white isn't causation for increased rates of crime.

Imagine if they just started gender profiling instead.

[AeneasBK]

Relevant...

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...rding-to-Study

...... Just .... HOW?

[Dezerte]

Probably because it's largely irrelevant and encourages racism.

[braeldiil]

First, most criminals are not black. Without even accounting for the racial disparities in the system, there are as many whites in jail as blacks. And once you factor in that blacks are, for the same offenses, more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted, as well as getting longer sentances, and it's pretty clear that white criminals significantly outnumber black criminals.

Second, once you exclude the victimless crimes (for example, drug possesion), criminals are a very small subset of any group - a couple of percent at worst. Penalizing the entire group is both bigoted and useless. You spend all that time harrassing law-abiding individuals of the "wrong" colors and missing criminals of the "right" colors. See New York's stops and frisk statistics for how that plays out.

If neither of those work, consider this: you are almost certainly male. 99% of rapists are male. Therefore, you should be treated by everyone you meet as a potential rapist. It's just what the numbers say, after all.

[Deleted]

So do you believe that there's no excuse whatsoever to, on an airline flight, scrutinize Arabs more than white people?

Assume the underlying process can work. Do you think there's nothing to be added by scrutinizing Arab passengers more?

Scrutinise everyone equally and then nobody can blow up the plane, not just arabs.

[Laize]

First, most criminals are not black. Without even accounting for the racial disparities in the system, there are as many whites in jail as blacks. And once you factor in that blacks are, for the same offenses, more likely to be arrested, charged, and convicted, as well as getting longer sentances, and it's pretty clear that white criminals significantly outnumber black criminals.

Second, once you exclude the victimless crimes (for example, drug possesion), criminals are a very small subset of any group - a couple of percent at worst. Penalizing the entire group is both bigoted and useless. You spend all that time harrassing law-abiding individuals of the "wrong" colors and missing criminals of the "right" colors. See New York's stops and frisk statistics for how that plays out.

If neither of those work, consider this: you are almost certainly male. 99% of rapists are male. Therefore, you should be treated by everyone you meet as a potential rapist. It's just what the numbers say, after all.

That's not what the numbers say at all.

Those numbers say that, in the event of a rape (by unidentified attacker) all males should be suspect. Are you saying that's an erroneous assumption?

[Tychus]

In a certain respect, it's not much different than "pre-crime" policing in Minority Report - without the precogs.

[AeneasBK]

That's not what the numbers say at all.

Those numbers say that, in the event of a rape (by unidentified attacker) all males should be suspect. Are you saying that's an erroneous assumption?

WOW, way to ignore the point of a post Laize You're quite the character

[Booshman]

So why is this thread still going? Despite the fact that it was ended by the third post in this thread. If the OP is still trying to justify/argue in favor of the "pro" side, even after being shown that the backbone of their position is a giant fallacy, then they have a clear and obvious negative agenda. No matter how nice and neutral they tried to sound in their opening's disclaimer.

[Gamdwelf]

Because making decisions about people purely based on the color of their skin is really stupid.

[Laize]

WOW, way to ignore the point of a post Laize You're quite the character

He was trying to say "most criminals aren't black" which ignores the fact that something like 1-in-3 black males has been through the justice system in their lives.

He says there are just as many whites in prison as black, which goes against pretty much everything the NAACP has been arguing (re: over representation of blacks in prison) for decades.

So his point was either predicated on falsehoods OR it was otherwise invalid.

[Endus]

There's three issues.

The first, as pointed out; you're targeting innocent people due to solely superficial characteristics. You're saying that black guy looks like a criminal because he's black. That's outrageously racist. That's the really obvious one.

The second, which isn't as obvious, is that the entire idea of profiling is absolute hokum. The majority of whichever group you're looking at are innocent of any wrongdoing. And no group is fully 100% free from offenders. Meaning you're making a judgement call that a certain rate of offense is "okay", and it's higher rates than that which are "bad" and you'll target those groups. That is an entirely subjective line to draw, and in pretty much every single case, it's not drawn for any objective statistical basis, but merely to justify the outstanding racism.

The third issue, which is entirely damning of the entire concept, is that it ignores the population levels in question. Going by this FBI data, ~2,600,000 African-Americas were arrested for something in 2011. However, ~6,500,000 Caucasian-Americans were arrested, about 2.5 times as many. Yes, there are significantly more Caucasian-Americans than African-Americans, population-wise, and the rate of offense is higher for the latter, but the greater proportion of actual criminals is still white dudes. So if you're profiling African-Americans due to the rate, you're missing out on the majority of actual criminals. Which means profiling is failing to actually accomplish its purpose.

[Laize]

So why is this thread still going? Despite the fact that it was ended by the third post in this thread. If the OP is still trying to justify/argue in favor of the "pro" side, even after being shown that the backbone of their position is a giant fallacy, then they have a clear and obvious negative agenda. No matter how nice and neutral they tried to sound in their opening's disclaimer.

You clearly misunderstand what the ecological fallacy is if you think that ended it.

The ecological fallacy is when you attempt to presume how someone will act because of their demographic. The inverse (Presuming someone's demographic based upon how they act) is valid.

[Hyve]

Because even if the majority of a certain group are more likely to fit certain profiles, it's unfair to base each and every individual on that alone.

I'm not denying it's not logical to make calculated assumptions based on evidence, but to total base your opinions on what are often bigoted view points is not going to help with social mobility in certain races / groups when they're already struggling.